4 ms·
I appreciate that perspective. As a user of a phone with various apps, I also appreciate those restrictions, which make my experience less of a jungle of differ
by aaronharnly 6y ago
I appreciate that perspective. As a user of a phone with various apps, I also appreciate those restrictions, which make my experience less of a jungle of different payment plans and questionable battery-sucking activities.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoIdeal solution is giving YOU, the User, decide, which apps to run. All you need to make the decision is the data which app consumes how much energy. If I need a processor-intensive app to do some computations all the time, I should be allowed to run it, with full understanding that the device will need to recharge in 3 hours. It's my device, my battery, my use case.
- MiddleEndian 6y agoAndroid is very opaque about what is actually running. I was walking by a shopping area with a new phone recently and Google Maps popped up with some irrelevant notification. But upon viewing running apps, Maps was not in that list, so there's basically an unknown number of useless background tasks running that the user cannot view or control. As a whole, Android is pretty terrible. You can't run the things you want and you can't stop the things you don't.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoThat's why efforts should be directed towards improving this aspect of Android, not removing entirely user's capabilities to manage his own device.
- MiddleEndian 6y agoWe are 100% in agreement. But I don't think the Android team agrees with us unfortunately.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoGoogle's best interest is to vendor lock users on it's plstform and retain the maximum amount of control over Android. They won't give it up voluntarily, that's why I used the word 'forced' in my first post in this thread: now it can happen only after a binding legislation, and, possibly, breaking up Alphabet.